Perhaps the origin of our universe could be explained in parallel universes? I personally believe something has had to've always existed (the religious here can't deny this). Maybe there is a universe that's always existed. And the cause of the Big Bang of our universe came from another universe.

a) "Something can not come out of nothing" - the first law of thermodynamics

The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.

The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this. But people often argue that the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of energy (which is essentially the first law of thermodynamics).

There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, as already pointed out, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the BBT actually addresses. Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe; we simply do not know. Finally, it is not clear that one can sensibly talk about time "before the Big Bang". "Time" is an integral part of our universe (hence the GR term "spacetime") - so it is not clear how exactly one would characterize the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved.

Assuming we have some way to handle notions of time outside of our spacetime, the universe appearing out of nothing would only violate the first law of thermodynamics if the energy beforehand were different from the energy afterwards. Probably all people will agree that "nothingness" should have an energy of zero; so the law is only violated if the energy of the universe is non-zero. But there are indeed good arguments that the energy of the universe should be exactly zero!

I simply need to doubt the accuracy of our mathematics as a means of measuring and calculating the nature of the real universe.

So, in other words, you haven't ACTUALLY examined Hawking's proof, and therefore, you have no basis for doubting its integrity, except as it exists within the category of mathematical proofs generally, which you generally disbelieve. So, in other words, you can't actually identify any particular problem with THIS mathematical proof. Since you understand it so well, though, would you mind, for the benefit of others that aren't as familiar with Hawking's "evidence" (aka Hawking's mathematical proof), just going over the broad strokes of the approach of his proof and maybe touching on a few spots that you feel might exhibit some of the deviation from real, physical world that you claim runs throughout the mathematical world? Let's pretend for a moment that you wanted to go a step above mindlessly running your mouth and actually back your shit up. Since you understand these sorts of things so well, surely, you would have no problem elaborating on the specifics of the problems with Hawking's proof, right? Please, let us glory in your understanding for a few precious moments, hideousmonster. Let's pretend that someone here actually believed for so much as a single nanosecond that you weren't just utterly full of shit and actually believed that you understood the evidence for the Big Bang well enough to develop a coherent critique of it. Can you, using Hawking's proof as the background, sort of give them some talking points of where to begin on dismantling this mathematical proof?

Actually, it isn't. That's the difference between proof and evidence. Proof is proof. We establish the assumption (that general relativity as described by Einstein holds) and the proof follows inexorably from there. But you understand the evidence, and are prepared to, here and now, demonstrate your understanding and fluency with the state of the science of cosmology by explaining the jist of the problems with the proof in terms accessible to a person of above-average intelligence and some familiarity with the field, right?

Let's pretend for a moment that you wanted to go a step above mindlessly running your mouth and actually back your s**t up. Since you understand these sorts of things so well, surely, you would have no problem elaborating on the specifics of the problems with Hawking's proof, right?

No, I'd rather not bother backing up a doubt. My opinion is what it is, and I don't believe explanation is necessary to express it.

Actually, it isn't. That's the difference between proof and evidence. Proof is proof. We establish the assumption (that general relativity as described by Einstein holds) and the proof follows inexorably from there. But you understand the evidence, and are prepared to, here and now, demonstrate your understanding and fluency with the state of the science of cosmology by explaining the jist of the problems with the proof in terms accessible to a person of above-average intelligence and some familiarity with the field, right?

I disagree with that. From what I can tell, proof is observer dependent, and evidence is real. Take our court system, for instance. The prosecution can present all the evidence it wants, but it isn't proof unless the jury decides it so. Witness testimony is evidence, but if it were proof, there would be a lot less atheists like me in the world. Proof is simply convincing evidence. Without a convincee, there is no proof. Proof does not mean something is true, it means you have decided to believe it's true, given your own personal faith in the evidence presented. I have faith in our mathematics when using it to program computers, and design buildings and machines, but for explaining how galaxies and subatomic particles interact with one another? How time interacts with space, and light interacts with matter, magnetism, and gravity? Not so much. I'm not even convinced that the red shift of light from far-off galaxies is caused by the principals we think cause it. Human beings have had to redesign our mathematics to better describe what we observe many times in our history. And if history is any indicator, I would not be surprised if our current system is pointing us in yet another wrong direction.

Logged

If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

No, I'd rather not bother backing up a doubt. My opinion is what it is, and I don't believe explanation is necessary to express it.

So, now mathematical proofs aren't even worth refuting?! Again, hideousmonster, how far-reaching is this big math lie? Is Euclidean geometry out? Do you think that the theorem stating the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180* is not really an accurate picture of real life triangles? Ballpark, how far off are we on pi? Does 1+1=2 misrepresent the reality of having one orange and then obtaining another one? At what point are you willing to grant math's applicability to real life and where do you stop and why?

And again, I'll ask you, why not throw potential supporters a bone? Why not grant them the ability to understand the nature of your doubt? If it deserves to be doubted, why not explain why? Why not help someone who might also have doubts, but that lacks the understanding you have to pinpoint where the breakdown occurs? You could help them with some talking points. Otherwise, what's the point of you posting here at all? This is a forum. It's supposed to be interactive. If you don't like answering questions about the things you post, why post? Just to troll the thread? It adds nothing to to conversation to have you come in and simply say, "I'm not convinced and you'll never know why and you'll never convince me because I refuse to talk about the topic of this thread at all."

So, now mathematical proofs aren't even worth refuting?! Again, hideousmonster, how far-reaching is this big math lie? Is Euclidean geometry out? Do you think that the theorem stating the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180* is not really an accurate picture of real life triangles? Ballpark, how far off are we on pi?

Triangles and circles aren't physical objects, dude. They're another part of math. Your asking me whether math accurately describes itself. Sure. Maybe it does. But when you translate that to real life space, time, matter, and energy, you only have rough approximations, and even those are based only on our own point of view, too large to see the details of the super-subatomic world, and too small to see the mechanics of a galaxy.

Quote

Does 1+1=2 misrepresent the reality of having one orange and then obtaining another one? At what point are you willing to grant math's applicability to real life and where do you stop and why?

You're asking me to explain why I don't consider 1+1=2 enough to convince me that human-invented mathematics does not perfectly describe the physical world? If you don't understand by now, then I won't ever be able to explain it to you. To answer your question, in math 1=1, but in reality, one orange does not equal another orange. In fact, one orange may not even equal the same orange a day later.

Quote

And again, I'll ask you, why not throw potential supporters a bone? Why not grant them the ability to understand the nature of your doubt? If it deserves to be doubted, why not explain why? Why not help someone who might also have doubts, but that lacks the understanding you have to pinpoint where the breakdown occurs? You could help them with some talking points. Otherwise, what's the point of you posting here at all? This is a forum. It's supposed to be interactive. If you don't like answering questions about the things you post, why post? Just to troll the thread? It adds nothing to to conversation to have you come in and simply say, "I'm not convinced and you'll never know why and you'll never convince me because I refuse to talk about the topic of this thread at all."

"Troll the thread?" My friend, trolling the thread would be telling people they are wrong. I never told anybody they were wrong. I said I doubt they are right. It's not even an expression of an opinion... if anything it's an expression of a lack of faith. Faith in our reality-measuring abilities. I've spent years online explaining my doubts about the existence of god, and there were no "potential supporters" to be found there. They were all either totally dogmatically devoted to their conclusions, or they already agreed with me. In my experience, the only thing you get when you present reason for doubt is a flood of arguments that you're mistaken, no matter how unfounded, or circular the logic. So you ask me why I don't explain my doubts? I simply have no interest in convincing anybody that I'm right to doubt.

Not in mathematics. You saying that you blindly disbelieve a mathematical proof does not at all affect the proof.

Look, when people start tossing around words like "blindly" and "proof" in a discussion, the only thing it looks like to me is sensationalized dogmatism. It's evangelical arguing, and it indicates a person who just wants to defend their faith, and attack those who doubt it. In mathematics, proof means something solid. It can be used to perfectly describe math itself. But in the real world, proof is just an opinion. A decision to believe something given the evidence presented.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 07:29:43 PM by hideousmonster »

Logged

If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible. If that was true; flight, brain surgery, supersonic flight, space flight, cars, nukes, breaking the sound barrier on land, etc would all be impossible. I have quotes from experts in all those fields (or the revelant precursors) saying they where impossible.

It is impossible to get something from nothing therefore there has to be a perminent somethng that created everythng.

Two comments;

1. If 'there has to be a permanent^^ something that created everything' then there must be another something that created the other something. It's turtles all the way down.

2. A hundred years ago, if someone said that matter can be made out of a sunbeam they would be considered a bit nutty. Yet, the universe was once matterless, our sun and other stars convert matter and energy and with particle accelerators we routinely do as well; E=mc2.

Yet, a hundred years ago, who would have considered such things?

Our -- or your -- current level of understanding of the universe does not limit what it is in reality. The physicists and cosmologists have shown that they can expand our knowledge and correct our mistakes about what we used to know. They methodically come to an agreement on complex issues on a regular basis. Theologians and priests make grand statements with no backing in reality ... because if they did have any backing, there would be no contradictory dogmas. They lack the humility and thoughtfulness of a physicist.

^^. You don't really want to go and try and support the 'permanent' part, do you? If you do, you need only show me why the 'permanent' part you identified doesn't have a precursor. Turtles turtles turtles.

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

Again, this is about participating in the forum. Why don't you simply replace your existence here entirely by deleting all of your posts and starting a thread entitled, "Hideousmonster doubts what you just said and nothing you can ever do or say can possibly alter my position" and leave it at that? This is a discussion forum. If you aren't interested in discussion, then you're just trolling.

The big band does not claim that matter was created out of nothing. The big bang claims that a singularity of VERY DENSE MASS (i.e., all the matter was there to begin with!!! and everything that is matter now!!!) spread out and created time and space.

Time = the distance between two objects.Space = the time it takes to get from one object to another.

No.

Time:Time depends on the reference frame of the observer and the relative motion between when the event took place and the observer who sees the results of that event.

Einstein defined time as:"Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously."

Time is most definitely not the distance between two objects. The motion of the objects, the motion of the observer, and the location of all three play into the measure of time.

Space:You mean distance. Something very different from space. Distance is measured as the time it takes light to get from one point to another.

Space is no longer just 3D. It is now considered 4D space-time. Read below for a very very good introduction to these concepts.

Assuming general relativity being the operative phrase. I basically find myself siding with hideousmonster here. The notion of singularity simply implies that the mathematics has fallen apart. By the time Hawking put out A Brief History of Time, he'd said, "Oops, never mind!" Dave, you said something similar over a year ago, and never got back to this reply of mine:

Quote from: Davedave on September 14, 2007, 11:04:05 AMIn 1971, Stephen Hawking mathematically proved that, assuming that Einstein's theory of general relativity is correct, space-time must have had come from a singularity. General Relativity is still widely regarded as a true and correct theory, so the answer to your question is yes. Stephen Hawking proved Big Bang, given general relativity. It's not really a matter of still.

I only managed to read A Brief History of Time a few months ago, and pretend no expertise, but it sounds like there's much more involved here than just Hawking's theorems from almost four decades ago. In fact the mainstream consensus, Hawking included, holds that general relativity is incomplete. I personally have serious doubts about the overall validity of general relativity, http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=3475.msg51303#msg51303, and strongly suspect that if it is ever made whole, it will no longer be recognizable as general relativity.

Here are a few relevant excerpts from A Brief History of Time:

...The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account...

... As experimental and theoretical evidence mounted, it became more and more clear that the universe must have had a beginning in time, until in 1970 this was finally proved by Penrose and myself, on the basis of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. That proof showed that general relativity is only an incomplete theory: it cannot tell us how the universe started off, because it predicts that all physical theories, including itself, break down at the beginning of the universe. However, general relativity claims to be only a partial theory, so what the singularity theorems really show is that there must have been a time in the very early universe when the universe was so small that one could no longer ignore the small-scale effects of the other great partial theory of the twentieth century, quantum mechanics. At the start of the 1970s, then, we were forced to turn our search for an understanding of the universe from our theory of the extraordinarily vast to our theory of the extraordinarily tiny...

So it would almost seem that to speak with confidence of a singularity at or near the beginning of our universe we need first a complete theory of gravity. And apparently it would be helpful to be able to observe all of the matter in the universe.

In my opinion Benny Goodman was created out of nothing. Or at any rate his big band plagiarized the much better, original New Orleans black jazz sound, while the commercially successful white cracker Manhattan bands were a Zionist self-promotion created essentially out of nothingness.